Much like Lance Armstrongs cancer charity, it is a joke. About 20% of there donations end up going to cancer research when the cited aim of the organisation is to fund the finding of a cure.

I've not did complete research, but isn't this true of almost every large charity?

The logic being that if they didn't invest in these these staff, systems and marketing they might be able to pass on 80% of donations but that would be 80% of a much smaller number. By investing in all this stuff it means they can only pass on 20%, but that 20% is a higher $ value.

ie instead of 80% of £50,000 = £40,000, they get 20% of £1,000,000 = £200,000.

Much like Lance Armstrongs cancer charity, it is a joke. About 20% of there donations end up going to cancer research when the cited aim of the organisation is to fund the finding of a cure.

I've not did complete research, but isn't this true of almost every large charity?

The logic being that if they didn't invest in these these staff, systems and marketing they might be able to pass on 80% of donations but that would be 80% of a much smaller number. By investing in all this stuff it means they can only pass on 20%, but that 20% is a higher $ value.

ie instead of 80% of £50,000 = £40,000, they get 20% of £1,000,000 = £200,000.

Don't want to go too off topic so I'll keep it short, you have to research who you donate to. Some large charities take in millions and as low as 5%-6% is given out while the board takes in $500k-$1m in salary often when they are also CEO's at large corporations.

One of the gripes with Komen in particular is that their stated mission is "finding a cure" while of the 20% that they spend only half goes to research that looks into finding a cure and the rest is spent on awareness campaigns, screening, and treatment. While there's nothing wrong with those things but there are many other charities doing the same thing and takes money away from the research that is right there in their name.

Finding a cure to cancer is a misleading statement anyway. It implies cancer is like catching an infection that you can take antibodies for and it will be killed. While it may be possible to create something that does attack cancer, it's not really the same sort of thing.

Really, the "cure for cancer" is a marketing slogan more than anything. In terms of medical research, it's really divided between treatment and preventative methods / early detection.

This really is one of those things that is difficult to really discuss in a short form discussion. Ultimately, it is generating money for the illness, but with 80% of the money seemingly going elsewhere, that's a waste level that would never be tolerated in any public service.

In terms of cost efficiency, it's clearly best to give the money directly to the research teams. But if you did that, would you be able to raise even 10% of the money that would be generated this way? It's a highly debatable issue. Clearly, if people's pockets are being lined on this, that makes them terrible people. But it's like someone saying "give me a million dollars and I'll save a child from a sinking ship and buy myself 9 Ferraris" - they are putting you in a position where opposing it focuses on the child drowning, they tie your inaction to that occurring - and while you may be able to pay someone else to go out and save the child without funding the 9 Ferraris, you have no idea whether that would be successful or not.

To be clear, I don't know that the 80% is lining the pockets of these people, although no doubt they will be making something out of it.

However, all charitable work doing by profit making companies will have some cynicism to it as you break it down - even if it's just to reduce their tax burden and gain some positive PR.

Finding a cure to cancer is a misleading statement anyway. It implies cancer is like catching an infection that you can take antibodies for and it will be killed. While it may be possible to create something that does attack cancer, it's not really the same sort of thing.

Really, the "cure for cancer" is a marketing slogan more than anything. In terms of medical research, it's really divided between treatment and preventative methods / early detection.

This really is one of those things that is difficult to really discuss in a short form discussion. Ultimately, it is generating money for the illness, but with 80% of the money seemingly going elsewhere, that's a waste level that would never be tolerated in any public service.

In terms of cost efficiency, it's clearly best to give the money directly to the research teams. But if you did that, would you be able to raise even 10% of the money that would be generated this way? It's a highly debatable issue. Clearly, if people's pockets are being lined on this, that makes them terrible people. But it's like someone saying "give me a million dollars and I'll save a child from a sinking ship and buy myself 9 Ferraris" - they are putting you in a position where opposing it focuses on the child drowning, they tie your inaction to that occurring - and while you may be able to pay someone else to go out and save the child without funding the 9 Ferraris, you have no idea whether that would be successful or not.

To be clear, I don't know that the 80% is lining the pockets of these people, although no doubt they will be making something out of it.

However, all charitable work doing by profit making companies will have some cynicism to it as you break it down - even if it's just to reduce their tax burden and gain some positive PR.

I don't disagree with your point, but I don't think its quite as cynical as many believe.

Charities exist to generate money, which they then pass on to something. Companies exist to generate money. They are both after the same goal, so it makes sense they work in what is essentially the right way.

They need someone at the top who can really drive the strategy, create a vision, and get the right people in place to generate that revenue (I'm being simplistic, I know). Charities will look at their employees as a return on investment to some degree. Do you want the best talent out there finding you money, and generating more revenue? Well its going to cost more money to hire and retain them.

I have no doubt there are some really dirty organisations out there, but many of them with these horrible %s are just different charities operating with different 'profit margins' looking to generate as much revenue as they can to pass on to the cause - they just need to pay a bunch of people in order to do this.

moby wrote:

I think most pharma companies dont want to find a 'cure', thats a customer lost. They want a 'controler' so they are locked in for life.

I disagree with this entirely. Sometimes we see the horrible, psychopathic side of business but they're usually kept in check. Plus even looking at it coldly - the first person to get to that magic cure? Well, that's one way to give your company a use competitive edge.

The real issue is cancer is not a one size fits all fix. It's not a foreign object. It's not something which has wormed its way in. Its part of the fabric of us, and comes with a huge variety...

anything that brings up the subject and awareness of cancer is good cancer can seem along way from you and can be something you have never considered , but if you get it , then its very frightening and real

anything that brings up the subject and awareness of cancer is good cancer can seem along way from you and can be something you have never considered , but if you get it , then its very frightening and real

Everyone's aware of cancer. It's not a new disease. But the only cancer people are ever made aware of is breast cancer. Kinda getting sick of all the pink ribbons. There're many other types of cancers too.

anything that brings up the subject and awareness of cancer is good cancer can seem along way from you and can be something you have never considered , but if you get it , then its very frightening and real

Everyone's aware of cancer. It's not a new disease. But the only cancer people are ever made aware of is breast cancer. Kinda getting sick of all the pink ribbons. There're many other types of cancers too.

make no mistake it's quite painful for the family (my brother induced thank to the US government)... but the machine is all about $$.

Anything that does anything with research for any cancer is good. Don't look at the one thing, just what works on the tumour and side effects so much of it is transferable. My 'gripe' if you can call it that is when there are huge collections to go to people affected by the death of a famous person. Yes, its nice for them, but that money would be far better put into research to help everyone.